ESauce wrote:Only by people on the internet. The only difference is that there were a thousand people writing different theories online about Snoke and so everyone built up a ton of anticipation for the reveal and were disappointed that they didn’t learn anything.

Nope. The original trilogy didn't have any backstory, but these movies do have one - the original trilogy - that has a pretty big Snoke-shaped piece missing. I have never given half a crap about fan theories.

ESauce wrote:Only by people on the internet. The only difference is that there were a thousand people writing different theories online about Snoke and so everyone built up a ton of anticipation for the reveal and were disappointed that they didn’t learn anything.

Nope. The original trilogy didn't have any backstory, but these movies do have one - the original trilogy - that has a pretty big Snoke-shaped piece missing. I have never given half a crap about fan theories.

That’s fair. I understand why you would be curious given that there is a gap between the movies that is unexplored. I guess I’m just sick of this new rule that every character has to have an origin story that action movies have been following for the last ten years. It used to be a bad guy could just be a bad guy and serve the purpose of the plot. The director in my mind was daring enough to just let Snoke be a mystery and have him serve as a plot device.

Is it possible that the reason fans that are more angry about certain things are that they may have more recently seen The Force Awakens? I haven't watched it in a while. So the film's large questions of who Rey's parents were and where did Snoke come from aren't as prevalent in my mind. Now, if I had watched The Force Awakens right before seeing the The Last Jedi I'd be going in with a different set of expectations. Not having seen it in a while, to me at least, the movie was a clean slate and I enjoyed the ride while it was moving.

ESauce wrote:That’s fair. I understand why you would be curious given that there is a gap between the movies that is unexplored. I guess I’m just sick of this new rule that every character has to have an origin story that action movies have been following for the last ten years. It used to be a bad guy could just be a bad guy and serve the purpose of the plot. The director in my mind was daring enough to just let Snoke be a mystery and have him serve as a plot device.

That's not daring; it's laziness. There are so many scenes where either he or another character could have tossed off a few throwaway lines about who/what he was and how he took over. It would have been trivial to make him make sense, no overblown "origin story" needed.

ESauce wrote:That’s fair. I understand why you would be curious given that there is a gap between the movies that is unexplored. I guess I’m just sick of this new rule that every character has to have an origin story that action movies have been following for the last ten years. It used to be a bad guy could just be a bad guy and serve the purpose of the plot. The director in my mind was daring enough to just let Snoke be a mystery and have him serve as a plot device.

That's not daring; it's laziness. There are so many scenes where either he or another character could have tossed off a few throwaway lines about who/what he was and how he took over. It would have been trivial to make him make sense, no overblown "origin story" needed.

I disagree. Throwing in some throwaway lines would have been unnecessary to the story and serve the purpose only of satisfying people’s curiosity. Whenever movies cram in lines like that it always feels forced. Show, don’t tell. You clearly, and I guess a lot of other people, cared about Snokes origins, but they are completely inconsequential to the story. Not throwing them in isn’t bad filmmaking, it’s just not pandering.

Only by people on the internet. The only difference is that there were a thousand people writing different theories online about Snoke and so everyone built up a ton of anticipation for the reveal and were disappointed that they didn’t learn anything.

Therein lies one of the biggest problems with this movie. The first movie presented two huge questions (who are Rey's parents and who is Snoke?) and this mpovie gave both the same answer: they're nobody and they don't matter. Can you blame anyone, nor just the theorists, for being ddisappointed by that?

Only thing is - the film itself didn't present these as questions - the fans did. The movie didn't tease Snoke or Rey's origins as something to be further explored. If anything Maz was urging Rey to look ahead, not behind her.

ESauce wrote:That’s fair. I understand why you would be curious given that there is a gap between the movies that is unexplored. I guess I’m just sick of this new rule that every character has to have an origin story that action movies have been following for the last ten years. It used to be a bad guy could just be a bad guy and serve the purpose of the plot. The director in my mind was daring enough to just let Snoke be a mystery and have him serve as a plot device.

That's not daring; it's laziness. There are so many scenes where either he or another character could have tossed off a few throwaway lines about who/what he was and how he took over. It would have been trivial to make him make sense, no overblown "origin story" needed.

I disagree. Throwing in some throwaway lines would have been unnecessary to the story and serve the purpose only of satisfying people’s curiosity. Whenever movies cram in lines like that it always feels forced. Show, don’t tell. You clearly, and I guess a lot of other people, cared about Snokes origins, but they are completely inconsequential to the story. Not throwing them in isn’t bad filmmaking, it’s just not pandering.

Throwaway line or not, it's still infinitely better than not doing it at all. As for him being unimportant, that was purely the director's decision. He could have, and should have, been a very interesting and deep character, just like all characters should be. Simply saying "Meh, the main antagonist of the series isn't important" is a sign of incredibly, shockingly lazy writing.

Stalvern wrote:That's not daring; it's laziness. There are so many scenes where either he or another character could have tossed off a few throwaway lines about who/what he was and how he took over. It would have been trivial to make him make sense, no overblown "origin story" needed.

I disagree. Throwing in some throwaway lines would have been unnecessary to the story and serve the purpose only of satisfying people’s curiosity. Whenever movies cram in lines like that it always feels forced. Show, don’t tell. You clearly, and I guess a lot of other people, cared about Snokes origins, but they are completely inconsequential to the story. Not throwing them in isn’t bad filmmaking, it’s just not pandering.

Throwaway line or not, it's still infinitely better than not doing it at all. As for him being unimportant, that was purely the director's decision. He could have, and should have, been a very interesting and deep character, just like all characters should be. Simply saying "Meh, the main antagonist of the series isn't important" is a sign of incredibly, shockingly lazy writing.

Who the heck said snoke was the main antagonist of the series? Maybe he was the main antagonist of the first movie but this movie made it abundantly clear that Kylo Ren is the main antagonist of the series.

And not every flat character is bad writing. If the character is important to the story it needs to be well rounded, a flat character is perfectly fine when the character exists for the sake of plot. Which was clearly the case here.

But I do understand that part of the problem here is that there are separate writers and directors for each movie in the series. So it might seem like snoke is important based on the first film (I admittedly haven’t seen that since it released) and then to have another writer come in and say that he isn’t could be jarring.

ESauce wrote:And not every flat character is bad writing. If the character is important to the story it needs to be well rounded, a flat character is perfectly fine when the character exists for the sake of plot. Which was clearly the case here.

No, that's not clearly the case here. They spent the first movie building him up to be Kylo Ren's Palpatine, a very big part of the story. You can't just write him off as a plot device after all that! Even if it was their intention for Kylo to kill him and take his place from the start, there has to be some kind of payoff for all that foreshadowing and buildup they gave you. It's like if the Marvel movies spent all this time building Thanos up as the ultimate bad guy, and then had Loki off him and take his place the first time he makes an appearance. No payoff! Major disappointment!

ESauce wrote:And not every flat character is bad writing. If the character is important to the story it needs to be well rounded, a flat character is perfectly fine when the character exists for the sake of plot. Which was clearly the case here.

No, that's not clearly the case here. They spent the first movie building him up to be Kylo Ren's Palpatine, a very big part of the story. You can't just write him off as a plot device after all that! Even if it was their intention for Kylo to kill him and take his place from the start, there has to be some kind of payoff for all that foreshadowing and buildup they gave you. It's like if the Marvel movies spent all this time building Thanos up as the ultimate bad guy, and then had Loki off him and take his place the first time he makes an appearance. No payoff! Major disappointment!

I think the point Esauce was trying to make is that Snoke is not an important character like Palpatine (or Thanos). He is merely an obstacle for Kylo Ren to overcome. TLJ was intended not to mirror ESB but instead to break the mold, allowing the series to go in new directions. There is significance not only in Kylo Ren's hostility toward's Snoke, but also in the writer's own hostility towards the character.

Snoke does not have much screentime in TFA either. The endless anticipation and theorizing about Snoke's identity over the past two years has made people start thinking that the movie was implying something when really it wasn't.

For me, the scene did have a massive dramatic payoff but not because of Snoke. It's because of the significance of Kylo Ren killing of his master (and the person standing in the way of him achieving ultimate power). The director wasn't aspiring for the type of scene you are describing. He was trying to do the exact opposite, and executed it flawlessly. Notice how when the light saber ignites the camera briefly capture's Snoke's reaction, but immediately shifts in focus to Kylo and Rey, even while Snoke is falling in two in the background. The camera is cluing us in to the important thing happening on screen, which is Kylo and Rey's reactions to what has just happened.